Traffic non-parking: 32

Traffic parking: 20

Traffic city ordinance: 1

City ordinance: 3

Other state law: 1

Miscellaneous: 4

On 2/2/19 Nederland Police received a call reporting harassment between two neighbors. Upon arrival, the officer took a report from the male party who lived on the property of the alleged incident. He claimed that his neighbor had been trying to pull into his driveway and had been approached by a male party who was visiting on his property. He stated that his friend began yelling at his neighbor after he felt that the reporting party had been driving aggressively trying to hit his dog as it stood at the edge of the driveway.

The male party stated that his neighbor is forced to drive assertively to get into his driveway due to the rough, steep incline and was forced to stop for fear of hitting the dog when it had come close to the edge of the driveway. He then had to go back down around the block to gain momentum to take another run up his driveway, and it was at this point that the visiting male (the dog’s person) came out yelling at him in a threatening way. He reported that he felt his friend was reacting so aggressively due to having PTSD from a violent past in the military and that he told his friend to leave and not return.

The officer then went to the reporting party’s home next door. The reporting party corroborated his neighbor’s report and claimed to be fearful for his physical safety once he got to his home, so he immediately went inside. A short time later, the reporting party was prompted to come back outside due to loud noises that turned out to be a propane truck refueling tanks. While he was outside investigating, the male party visiting next door again approached him in an aggressive and threatening manner, so he immediately went back inside for fear of being accosted. 

Once the officer completed his investigation, he made an attempt to contact the aggressive male party with the dog but was unable to locate him. 

On 3/6/19 Nederland Police were dispatched to a property with reports of suspects trespassing. Being aware that a tree cutting company called Asphlundh had been contracted by Excel Energy to trim back trees around power lines in the area, he noted that he had seen previous tree work done by the company that was very aggressive and overly done in his opinion. Upon arrival to the location in question, the officer spoke with a female party who was outside cleaning up the branches that were left behind. When he told her that it was unnecessary due to the company usually coming back to clean up, she reported wanting the wood for firewood. 

She was upset and reported that the company was on her property and doing more cutting than she deemed necessary. The officer explained to her the easement for utilities and their responsibility to cut trees back. The reporting party stated she wanted the incident documented in case the tree in question were to die or blow over from what she believed to be over cutting. She also claimed that a worker told her in profane language that he was going to finish the job and that it was not going to kill the tree. The officer felt obligated to warn the reporting party of potential code violation in the event the branches were not cleaned up, as she was using them to either hide or decorate an RV parking on the side of her home and there have been previous violations issued to the property owner in the past. The case was closed due to lack of sufficient information.

On 3/11/19 Nederland Police took a report of possible assault and criminal mischief. The reporting party claimed to have been in town with approximately $5,000 worth of camera equipment to photograph FDGD and had gone to a local establishment where he met up with a male party. Together they went outside to smoke a cigarette where the male party struck him in the face suddenly and without warning, causing him to drop his camera and lenses to the ground. The male party then walked away. The reporting party showed the officer the damaged equipment worth approximately $1,700, stating he did not want to press charges but only to have it reported for insurance purposes.

On 3/12/19 Nederland Police were dispatched to call a residence on the report of a cold theft. Upon making contact, the reporting party explained that the license plates were stolen from her van while parked in town. The stolen plates were entered into the CCIC by the Nederland Police Department Records Division. The party stated she was on her way to the DMV to acquire new plates. No other information was available at the time.

On 3/19/19 Nederland Police dispatched to a residence on a report of theft of medication. Upon arrival, he contacted a male party at the front door who looked like he was under the influence of ETOH and possible other substances. 

A recovering opioid addict in the early stages of recovery, the reporting party had confused and slurred speech and his thought processes were delayed and labored. He reported to the officer that he had a friend over the previous night whose full name and date of birth were unknown to him, but upon hearing the description, the officer recognized seeing a male party of similar description outside the residence the night before while he was on duty. 

The reporting party stated he was missing twenty collared shirts and some medications. Inventory of the medications proved that some were missing with the reporting party admitting to giving one to his friend, the accused, in order to prevent him from using in his home. Due to the intoxicated behavior of the reporting party, the officer could not prove he was not abusing his own medications. The officer and the reporting party attempted to contact the accused party together to no avail. A later attempt to contact the accused party resulted in a brief phone conversation where the accused denied theft, reporting that his friend is in a “terrible state” and “losing his mind.” There was no evidence of theft. 

On 4/2/19 Nederland Police was dispatched to a residence on a reported burglary. Upon arrival, he was shown to the break-in location, the boiler room, where the reporting party stated he found the door had been pried open. The officer observed damage around the latch. On the previous day, another Nederland Police Officer had been called to the premises on a different call, had seen the door damage and called it in to the residence maintenance. There was no cause for a report for his visit otherwise.

The officer responding to the burglary call contacted a member of management personnel for the residence and informed her of his findings. She reported that she knew the boiler needed repairs a couple weeks ago and would check to see if the repair man had to force entry to do repairs. The reporting party also stated he has heard footsteps in the attic area of the residence but is unable to open the trap door to check out the area. The officer is deeming the case criminal mischief at this time and will issue orders for regular checks of the laundry room for evidence of transients due to the outside doors of the facility being kept unlocked. 

On 4/4/19 Nederland Police met with a female party at the department regarding some found narcotics. The reporting party stated she found the unknown substance outside of the Community Center. Upon testing the substance, it was found to be positive for amphetamines and was therefore processed according to proper procedure. The one officer reported to the other officer that there had also been a penny found at the site which appeared to be used to ignite something, but when the other officer inspected the area in question, no scrapes or evidence was found. 

On 4/6/19 Nederland Police received a call from a couple reporting a stolen dog. The couple stated they had left their dog with a trusted friend while they were dealing with relocation from Arizona, but the dog had been stolen and was in the current possession of the trusted friend’s girlfriend. She was claiming ownership after having been in possession of the dog for 2-3 weeks, claiming her boyfriend had given it to her and that the dog was a constant companion to her children. 

The officer went to speak with all parties and took reports that the dog was not given to the girlfriend of the trusted friend but taken, the reporting parties produced documentation proving ownership of the dog, and the woman possessing the dog was not the owner. 

When the woman in question was told to return the dog, as the reporting couple did not want to press charges only regain possession of their dog, the woman became agitated and hostile and refused. This behavior prompted the officer to call for a Boulder County Sheriff to assist and to attempt to detain the woman due to lack of cooperation, of which she recanted and went into the house to retrieve the dog. 

The officer felt her behavior to be a potential safety hazard and followed her to the home to ensure no weapons were gotten in retaliation of the situation. The woman berated the officer after letting the dog go back to its owners, stating his conduct was illegal and he would no longer be employed. The officer completed the transaction and left, turning in a body camera video taken of the interaction along with the case file. 

(Originally published in the May 23, 2019, print edition of The Mountain-Ear.)